/$(/,86$1')$8678662&,1863$577:2 /DHOLXVDQG)DXVWXV6RFLQXV)RXQGHUVRI6RFLQLDQLVP 7KHLU/LYHVDQG7KHRORJ\ 3DUW7ZR 0$5,$1+,//$5 Theology of Faustus Socinus Faustus Socinus wrote his major theological works while staying in Switzerland and Italy. His works written in Poland were an elucidation of his theological doctrines. He spoke against: the chiliastic doctrine which was accepted by many Christians and Christian groups — Ebionites, Marcionites, Apollinarists, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and many Anabaptists; the non-adoration of Christ which was supported by Francis Dávid and Palaeologus; the second baptism; and the radical social doctrine of some Polish supporters. The core of his doctrines coincided with the doctrines developed by the Polish Brethren: 1. Anti-Trinitarianism or negation of the traditional concept of the Trinity. 2. Unitarianism or negation of the preexistence of the Son (Jesus). 3. The concept of redemption through moral acts. 4. The concept of radical dualism, i.e., radical difference between God and man. 5. The mortality of Adam before his fall. 6. The concept of religion as a practice of ethical principles, i.e., the conviction that moral commands such as the Sermon on the Mount must be practiced. 7. The conviction that man is able to develop the will to follow Christ and thus achieve salvation. 8. Opposition to the mysticism which required a special illumination to know religious truth. 9. The conviction that man’s natural reason is sufficient for understanding and interpreting the Scripture. 10. An empirical position that all our knowledge comes from sensual experience: “For as Philosopher said, nothing is in the mind, that is in the intellect, which would not be first in the senses” (Nam, ut dictum est a Philosopho, nihil est in mente, sive in intellectu, quod non 1 prius fuerit in sensu). ¢ )DXVWXV6RFLQXV'HVWDWXSULPLKRPLQLVDQWHODSVXPGLVSXWDWLRLQ%LEOLRWKHFD)UDWUXP 3RORQRUXP %)3 HG$QGUHDV:LV]RZDW\$PVWHUGDP9RO /$(/,86$1')$8678662&,1863$577:2 The difference in theology between the Polish Brethren and Socinus included Socinus’s rejection of anthropological pessimism, which the Brethren inherited from the Lutheran-Calvinist tradition, and rejection of the second baptism. The Knowledge of God and Authority of the Scripture For Socinus the only way to know God was through the Scripture itself, that is from the revealed word of God. Thus he negated any possibility of a natural knowledge of God either from an innate idea or from the contemplation of nature. Religion is based on revelation; it comes from faith and thus there is no natural 2 religion: religio res naturalis nequaquam est. As evidence he quoted the recent discoveries of new territories where there were no religions. Moreover, this is implicitly affirmed by the Scripture, and if it were not, religion would not have any 3 value. The revelation comes from the will of God in a historical process. Socinus argued that there could be four reasons why a Christian might doubt the authenticity and absolute authority of the Scripture: 1. if the authors are not trusted; 2. if authors are not identified; 3. if one thinks or knows with certainty that the text is corrupted; 4. if there are contrary testimonies. Socinus eliminated all these doubts, arguing that the Apostles could not contradict the precepts of Christian truth, and that Christians must believe unconditionally in the sacred Scripture by adhering to the text, that is to its philological interpretation. For those professing other religions one has to demonstrate the preeminence of Christianity. And this he attempted to do through his understanding of religion: namely, religion for Socinus was essentially moralistic and consisted of promises and precepts. According to Socinus, one finds in Christianity the most splendid and greatest promises as well as the best precepts. If the truth of a religion were indisputable, there would be no difference between the good ones and the bad ones and there would be no reason for rewarding or punishing. On God’s part, religion is revelation; on man’s part, religion is faith and conviction 4 that one has to follow the divine precepts and that the promises will be fulfilled. Anti-Trinitarian Christology In his first treatise written in 1562, Explicatio primae partis primi capitis 5 Evangelii Joannis, Socinus gave a different interpretation of the words of John (John 1:1-3) that negated the Trinitarian dogma. Traditionally, this chapter was interpreted on the basis of Greek philosophy and religion, assuming the existence of a second person, the Son of God or Word or Logos, as the cosmic entity which preexisted with God the Father and was united with Him by the same substance. At a certain time the Son of God became “flesh,” that is a human being, Jesus, while still being God. Socinus’s argument against such interpretation rested on its inconsistency with other scriptural passages. In the interpretation of both Laelius and Faustus the £ )DXVWXV6RFLQXV&RPPHQWDULXVLQ(SLVWRODP-RDQQHV$SRVWROLSULPDPLQ%)39RO )DXVWXV6RFLQXV3UDHOHFWLRQHVWKHRORJLFDHLQ%)39RO ,ELG ! )DXVWXV6RFLQXV([SOLFDWLRSULPDHSDUWLVSULPLFDSLWLV(YDQJHOLL-RDQQLVLQ%)39RO /$(/,86$1')$8678662&,1863$577:2 “beginning” does not refer to the beginning of things as in Genesis, but must be understood as the beginning of Jesus’ teaching. The view that the Word (Logos) existed before time as a cosmic being has been accepted in traditional theology under the influence of Platonic philosophy and is not derived from the Gospels. In the Gospels the word Logos (Word) means the historical Jesus, the man, the son of Mary who was crucified and not an eternal cosmic Logos. John, by calling him Word (Logos), meant that Jesus was proclaiming the word of God, i.e., God’s will. Laelius and Faustus also stated that it is equally nonsensical to accept the literal meaning of the expression “and the Word was God.” Socinus emphasized that in the Scripture the term God was frequently used in a metaphorical sense to stress the rank and importance of the person so called. The Scripture calls angels, rulers, and judges “gods” and the term “God” in John 1 should be understood in this way. John is using this term for Jesus Christ not in the literal sense as equal to God, but to stress the dignity of Jesus who had a mission to build a new world, since “all things were made by him.” Thus, Jesus was a man, though foreseen in God’s plans; he was born at a given historical time and given a mission. Because of this he rightfully deserves adoration. Equally untrue is the contention that Christ atoned for human sins. Socinus discussed this question in his later writings. The dogma of atonement and satisfaction is, according to Socinus, contrary to reason and a sense of justice. The true role of Jesus was to demonstrate to people how to be saved. By dying on the cross Jesus proved that no sacrifice should prevent people from fulfilling God’s commands. The resurrection confirmed the truthfulness of Jesus’ teachings. Thus the resurrection is the central feature of his message. He confirmed by this his message and asserted that if people follow his teaching they would be raised from the dead. And in this sense only Christ can be called Savior. After his resurrection God gave Christ full power over the world and people and in this sense again he can be called God. The true understanding of the scriptural expression “the Son of God” applied to Jesus is not that he was born by the power of the Holy Spirit, but that his “likeness” 6 to the Father consisted in three functions, knowledge, immortality, and power: 1. Jesus knew human minds and hearts as no other prophet or angel. 2. Jesus was the only and the first man to rise to immortality. Though the Scripture mentions Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven, they were not raised from the dead and there is no indication that they were made immortal. 3. Jesus has power over human minds and bodies. He also commands good and bad spirits and judges men and rewards them according to their merits or sins with eternal life or punishment. But Jesus’ power extends only over the people belonging to the church. And the church is understood as the people who have any kind of knowledge about Jesus, even those who deny him. " 9DOHQWLQXV6PDOFLXV³'H&KULVWR´LQ(SLWRPH&ROORTXLL5DFRYLDHKDELWLDQQRHGV/HFK 6]F]XFNLDQG-DQXV]7D]ELU:DUVDZ3DxVWZRZH:\GDZQLFWZR1DXNRZH /$(/,86$1')$8678662&,1863$577:2 The expression “Holy Spirit” does not denote the third person of one God. The Holy Spirit is not a person or a cosmic being; it is the power of God and the 7 effectiveness of His actions. This power has the property of sanctifying people. The Doctrine of Justification The doctrine of justification as taught by the reformers was based on the doctrine of original sin developed by Augustine and viewed man from a pessimistic perspective, especially the doctrine propounded by Calvin. The reformers believed that man was not capable of any act which would have a justifying value in the eyes of God. They preached that salvation was possible only because Christ by his death on the cross atoned for human sins by placating the anger of God. To be saved man must have a strong faith in the redeeming role of Christ’s martyrdom. Faith, however, is not a personal merit of man, but an unmerited gift of God dependent on God’s grace which is given only to those who are selected arbitrarily. Thus free will is a fiction. And without the grace of God men are irrevocably doomed; only the elect ones receive the grace of God without any merit on their part. Socinus’s doctrine of justification was quite different.